2018-02-21 FMG concall

HL7 TSC FMG Meeting Minutes Location: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/279790597 (voice and screen)		Date: 2018-02-21 Time: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Chair:		Note taker(s): Anne W.

Quorum = chair + 4			yes/no
Co chairs	x	David Hay	x	Lloyd McKenzie
ex-officio	.	Wayne Kubick, CTO

Members		Members		Members		Observers/Guests
x	Hans Buitendijk		Brian Postlethwaite		Paul Knapp	x	Anne W., scribe
x	Josh Mandel	x	John Moehrke	x	Brian Pech
	Grahame Grieve					x	Amol Vyas

Agenda

• Roll Call
• Agenda Check
• Minutes from 2018-02-14_FMG_concall
• Action items
  • PA to consider other alternatives for PatientAnimal
  • John and Brian Post to work together to figure out how to express what Brian wants and compare it to what is already in Consent for review with Grahame and then FMG if necessary
  • Check with Grahame on implementation of distinguishing HL7 artifacts from others and controlling maintenance of the artifacts in the FHIR Registry
  • Lloyd/Grahame to work on Google doc to identify risks/strategies around universal realm IGs
  • Grahame to reach out to international council re: international IGs
  • Lloyd will draft an email to run past David and Grahame to address the issue of CBCP using Contract for Consent purposes
• Review Items
• Discussion Topics
  • Freeze date evaluation
  • IG risk mitigation
  • NIBs
  • Policy around change deferral timelines
• Reports
  • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
  • SGB –
  • MnM –
  • FMG Liaisons –
• Process management
  • Ballot Planning
    • QA planning
  • Ballot content review and QA process FHIR QA Guidelines
• AOB (Any Other Business)

Minutes

• Roll Call
• Agenda Check
  • Made adjustments
    • MOTION to approve: Lloyd/John
• Minutes from 2018-02-14_FMG_concall
  • MOTION to approve: Lloyd/John
  • VOTE: All in favor
• Action items
  • PA to consider other alternatives for PatientAnimal
    • Carry forward
  • John and Brian Post to work together to figure out how to express what Brian wants and compare it to what is already in Consent for review with Grahame and then FMG if necessary
    • John reports no movement on it so far. Will look at Brian's stuff this week.
    • Carry forward
  • Check with Grahame on implementation of distinguishing HL7 artifacts from others and controlling maintenance of the artifacts in the FHIR Registry
    • Carry forward
  • Lloyd/Grahame to work on Google doc to identify risks/strategies around universal realm IGs
    • Complete - will review in discussion
  • Grahame to reach out to international council re: international IGs
    • Carry forward
  • Lloyd will draft an email to run past David and Grahame to address the issue of CBCP using Contract for Consent purposes
    • Complete
• Review Items
  • Resource Proposals
    • OrganizationAffiliation
      • Group reviews. This is saying something like this particular payer uses this particular organization as their claims processor, or these clinics are allowed to refer to this hospital. Lloyd states that boundaries need to be clearly defined; does it need to be limited to just organizatons? Can you also have affiliations between practitioners and organizations? Need to ask Brian Post about this next time.
        • ACTION: Add to next week
    • VerificationResult
      • Group reviews. Lloyd states this needs to have a lot of thought around it. We have all sorts of things in this space like Enrollment, Prescription and Lab Results verification. Creating a resource with this generic name without evaluating all the places it could potentially be used is disconcerting. John: Could overlap with Provenance. Lloyd: Need clearer definition of scope and relationships and how this will fit in the broad spectrum of healthcare.
        • ACTION: Add further discussion to next week.
• Discussion Topics
  • NIBs
    • Lloyd has drafted all five NIBs. Group reviews.
      • FHIR Core - Normative
      • Terminology and Conformance - Normative
      • Patient - Normative
      • Observation - Normative
      • Base Release 4 - STU
        • MOTION to approve all five NIBs: Lloyd/Josh
        • VOTE: All in favor
  • Freeze date evaluation
    • Lloyd sent notification reminder and no one has responded with concerns. Question is should we make any changes to the QA window. We could shrink it, or we could freeze normative as scheduled and give non-normative another week; for now we should wait to see what happens. Substantive freeze deadline is in 10 days. Should start soliciting reviewers for QA. Discussion over how to structure QA this time. David: Should we have one document per HTML page? Then we could assign individuals to particular pages. Lloyd states he can generate a whole bunch of files - the harder part is the value sets and/or integrating stuff so the content that comes from the structure definitions, value sets, and introductory section of the notes section are maintained separately, and therefore the QA processing doesn't understand they're relegated. For the normative ones we want to make sure content is sound. David: Is it feasible to have a single page with the structure definitions and the notes? Lloyd states yes, with MS Word macro work, but he is focused on JIRA balloting. Could put out a call for assistance in creating the extracts in a different way. Highest priority is normative content, then FMM3+ and the informative parts of the specification that have changed. May need to put main focus of QA on the normative candidate material for this time. Also need to figure out what the rules are going to be for change once we open the ballot, which will tie to how we do QA next time.
      • ACTION: David will look into better organization of QA content
      • ACTION: David will find the list of QA reviewers from last time and reach out, and also send out request on Zulip.
      • ACTION: Add "rules for change once we open the ballot" to next week's agenda
  • Policy around change deferral timelines
    • Related to discussion above - how long to we have to punt changes once the ballot is out? Normally people continue to submit tracker items during the ballot, and once that's done, we have a freeze date and punt tracker items after that date. In this case, we have another ballot coming up in September. If we do go back to ballot, the question is at what point do we set the freeze of not considering more stuff? Could have a freeze of 6 months of more in this situation. Need Grahame for this conversation.
      • ACTION: Add to next week's agenda
• Reports
  • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
    • Sandy, Grahame, David and Richard went over the responses to the post-event survey. Grahame has posted the resulting questions on Zulip. Closing date for tracks is the end of March.
  • SGB –
    • SGB considered comments from Lloyd and Grahame on the Product Life Cycle Governance document and made edits that will be sent out for further review.
  • MnM –
    • Working on change proposals.
  • FMG Liaisons –
    • Hans reports that OO is on track with their normative content.
  • IG risk mitigation
    • Group reviews/discusses. Discussion over numbers 4/5 and what conformance to the standard way of doing things means in different instances. Some resources have a "shall" listed on profiles that must be used to be conformant. The question is when should profiles be part of the core spec, and when is it okay for them to be external implementation guides. Lloyd states that "thou shalt" items need to be in the core spec.
      • ACTION: Group to review before next week for continued discussion
• Adjourned at 5:30 pm Eastern

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)

Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items 2018-02-28 FMG concall

Back to FHIR_Management_Group

© 2018 Health Level Seven® International